The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission plans to discuss and possibly vote on new gear requirements in the shrimp trawl fishery at their quarterly business meeting in New Bern on Wednesday and Thursday.

A three-year study identified four new gear configurations that reduce finfish bycatch by at least 40 percent. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, NOAA Fisheries and N.C. Sea Grant worked with commercial fishermen and local net makers to test 14 different trawl net configurations.

“Each time that we met, they would define what gears to be tested and, you know, as the three-year process went on, we started seeing some devices that showed more promise and we started focusing our efforts on those type of devices.”

Kevin Brown, gear development biologist with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries says nearly 314,000 pounds of fish and shrimp were sampled during the study.

“Typically, when these bycatch reduction certifications are done, you subsample. Typically, you have one observer on board and he samples both catch… But since the industry had some reservations about the subsampling process, they requested that we whole haul sampled, which we felt met our needs and gave them some more ownership in the process. So we did that but we had to put two observers on board just to handle the amount of material that we weighed and measured.”

Brown plans to present the findings to the commission on Thursday for possible management action. If the new gear requirements are approved, it would change the bycatch reduction devices that are allowed in the Pamlico Sound.

The gear combinations that achieved at least a 40% reduction in finfish bycatch include:

I thought Brown eliminated certain bycatch species in his study.Wouldn't the reduction of what they counted naturally reduce the bycatch total?How did they achieve a 40% reduction when the entire industry has not been able to find a method to achieve a result to reduce 5,10,20 or even 30%. The process seems flawed when there is a lack of transparency to how they collected the data. In the age of technology, cameras to film each haul would go a long way in helping support and verify data collected - if it's all legit...who would have an issue with it? It doesn't pass the smell test until there is full transparency.

It will be an utter disappointment if the results are voted on and approved without time for everyone to fully vet out the process and methodology.

Since you refuse to believe 25+yrs of scientific data collected by the State of North Carolina, I guess you think we should gladly accept the data and it's conclusions from the commercial fishing industry about bycatch reduction WITHOUT the opportunity to review and hold discussions.

There were no "concerned about the affects of bycatch" observers allowed, even though requests were made by the CCA and others to provide observers.

I, along with Joe Albe and Francoid, served on the shrimp AC and all three of us will tell you that this was to have been a bycatch reduction test in NC waters. In other words, testing what we were using on one side of the boat versus other combinations on the other side. And done in real world shrimping scenarios. That is what the industry told us at the AC level when they proposed the study.

When the motion was made at the MFC level a state employee was allowed to word the motion and in doing so the intent of the MFC was lost and the study became one of testing gear under a NOAA protocol to test By Catch Reduction Devices. (BRDS) I am not going to say that it was intentional, but it changed the type of study and focus that was going to be done.

That changed everything. Only one net on each side of the boat was being tested against one on the other side, not both sides of the boat at the same time as the MFC thought they had authorized. That is what would happen in real world use. Real world study gave way to technical study which allows for "tuning" of nets to assure optimum results, and most of all there is direct reference in the groups minutes that shows that when tows were "too fishy" or had too many fish in it they simply released the haul rather than bring it on board and count the results.

There are direct reference where certain types of bycatch were not counted even though in the real world that bycatch would be there and mostly likely dead. Obviously it is easy to reduce bycatch if you don't count it.

At the end of last year one boat owner made a comment that any observer would be welcomed on his boat, but when he said that the on water work was over. There are written records where non involved observers were denied access. I'm sure liability issues will be the excuse even though volunteer observers offered to sign waivers.

I hope the MFC does two things. Adopt the most stringent method that was identified as being mandatory while at the same time mandating that the work done to date be peer reviewed by scientists not involved in NC along with bringing studies done worldwide on the affects of trawling on entire biomass into the management conversation for NC. Just because a study has never been done in NC regarding long term affects on biomass doesn't mean that studies done on the same type of gear being pulled through the water isn't applicable to some degree here.

My guess is that a car that gets stuck in the mud will get stuck in the mud no matter whether the mud was caused by rain, melting ice, or steam from a volcanic vent. But I'm also sure that those trying to avoid blaming melting ice would argue and sue to not have it identified as such.

I applaud on one hand the shrimp industry's attempt to reduce bycatch, but at the same time the fact that people like me could not be on board to see it unfold means the work is clouded in suspicion simply based on many years of comments about what bycatch is or isn't.

I have to say it....."any group that is so focused on "open meetings" by state officials regarding the rights of the public to know the truth such as the NCFA, to the point they will sue; and then that same group refuses to allow 3rd party observers to oversee a testing of gear meant to harvest a public resource is just wrong by any stretch of law or common sense. They expect to be treated one way and then demand that people who regulate them are treated a different way."

We North Carolinians are a gullible bunch for letting this happen year after year.

Edited by Ray Brown - 15 May 2018 at 10:58am

I am a native of NC. The "bycatch captial of the east coast of the US". Our legislature lets us kill more fish for no reason than any other Atlantic Coast state. I hope they are proud.

IF THE DIVISION WAS DOING ITS JOB by adhering to the core principles of its Vision Statement, then the trials had an "independent" observer onboard- one dedicated to sound data gathering and objective analyses.

SeaGrant is a different story. The whole organization should be defunded in my opinion.

That agency has conflicting goals. There appears to be strong fences dividing independent objectives that are preventing synergy supporting sustainable fisheries- a goal that should be at the top of the pyramid with all others being subservient.

They could totally ban trawling in nc waters and y’all would still b*tch.

Personally....

What I think would be appropriate would be to - Ban all otter trawls in NC- Allow seine trawling for shrimp in the ocean- Ban gill nets- No additional pound nets- Ban netting of striped bass

That would be a good start.

Oh yeah, and to make confiscation of boat and jail time mandatory for willful violations of the rules. ie: you ban gill nets, you catch a joker using one, he loses his boat and gets to spend the next year turning big rocks into little ones at taxpayer expense.

Because there’s thousands of jobs on the line not to mention 10’s of thousands of people who want fresh shrimp. That’s a pretty good reason.

So how do other states get fresh shrimp if they have no trawling in inside waters? Guess there is a shortage?

If ALL the shrimp harvested in NC staying in the state, on GOOD years, the amount of shrimp harvested would supply almost 25% of the shrimp consumed in NC.

I don't know if you would call that a shrimp shortage, but NC fishermen just cannot feed their own citizens with local seafood.

The same is true for finfish. For example, take speckled trout. If ALL specs were kept in NC for consumption, that would be 0.01 lb per person per year. (about 100,000lbs annually, divided by NC Population of 11 million).

About the same for red drum.

Marine foraging in NC cannot supply the needed seafood for NC alone.

Edited by chriselk - 16 May 2018 at 8:02am

The above comments are my personal opinion and do not represent those of any organizations or agencies I may be a member of.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum